49 pages 1-hour read

Utopia for Realists: And How We Can Get There

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2014

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter 1Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 1 Summary: “The Return of Utopia”

Rutger Bregman begins the book by noting how contemporary life is radically different from the way that nearly all human beings lived for most of history. Only a small fraction of people now live in extreme poverty, as was the norm for most of humanity as recently as 200 years ago. Average incomes were stagnant for centuries, but have increased tremendously since the late 19th century. Life expectancy in the poorest countries today exceeds that in the richest countries in 1800. When most people lived in misery, as was the case until relatively recently, they developed notions of a “utopia,” an imaginary world where everyone had everything they could need or want. The specific features of a utopia tended to reflect the deprivation of the people who imagined it and depict a polarized vision, such as endless food and leisure time for those who starved as they labored. Life in the 21st century resembles many of these utopian visions because of its enormous wealth, long lifespans, scientific advancements, and infinite variety of entertainment. Vaccination has eradicated diseases that once wiped out millions. Education levels have risen significantly, and violence—both criminal violence and war-related deaths and injuries—has decreased.


The one downside of so many people enjoying such good conditions is that people now have become complacent and lack a belief in progress. Now that the present is a kind of utopia, working toward the utopia of a future can seem pointless, and societies instead focus on modifying the present system to remove imperfections. Living under conditions that most of humanity would have considered utopian, modern humanity has lost faith in the concept of utopia, dismissing it as a radical and uncompromising vision of a perfect world that ultimately leads to a figure such as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin imposing a version of perfection that serves a select group but results in heinous brutality against others. The notion of utopia has also carried with it the corresponding idea of a dystopia, a nightmarish vision that results from a society prizing a blueprint for perfection over common sense and human nature. However, utopian thought need not offer a detailed schematic for the perfect society, from which deviation is impossible. According to Thomas More, the English philosopher who coined the term, utopia is an abstract vision of the good that also highlights the injustices of the present. Utopias in this case are not a goal to pursue but a useful concept for thinking about the world and making it better. Without any radical or challenging ideas, political discourse devolves into mere technical concerns, with no sense of the great questions animating social and political life. People accordingly withdraw into themselves, focusing on personal satisfaction rather than the public good. When citizens are isolated from one another in this way, powerful social actors can more easily control them, which lends a dystopian element to an otherwise utopian existence. Society has led young people to expect that the world is theirs to take by storm, but now that reality has proven itself more complex, they often experience depression and other mental illnesses. Although young people imagine themselves as “special,” the world is becoming more homogenous, and social organizations like churches and unions, once a bulwark of independent values, are rapidly losing members. The most prestigious jobs, such as those in Silicon Valley, seem to offer only the surface of technological progress while dulling society itself. However, this malaise opens the door for a resurgence of utopian thinking to break out of a dreary presentism and boldly imagine the future once again. The goal is not to make the world a perfect place but to restore the imaginative capacities necessary to drive humanity forward.

Chapter 1 Analysis

This chapter establishes the groundwork for the book’s main themes: The Potential for Positive-Sum Gains, The Contingency of History, and The Dangers of Inequality. Some writers and thinkers view the modern world with an optimistic faith in the power of technology and new ideas to resolve the perennial problems of human existence. Others view it with dread, mourning the loss of traditional values that helped anchor a person’s identity. Bregman occupies a place between these two camps: He welcomes the promise of modernity even as he fears its possible consequences. He begins the book with a stridently optimistic tone, noting all the ways in which the lives of most poor people today are better than even those of the rich in past eras. Like Dr. Pangloss, the naively optimistic professor in Voltaire’s novel Candide (1759), Bregman initially suggests that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Bregman’s tone then abruptly shifts, turning to the profound psychological distress of people who believe that human achievement has reached its apex, so the only way forward is down. This is not the dystopia of George Orwell’s 1984 (1949), with a ubiquitous secret police and mind-numbing state propaganda, but rather Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932), where material plenty is the price to be paid for an animal-like existence of feeding one’s appetites without even a sense of a higher purpose.


Bregman’s combination of hope and fear most closely resembles the view of Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher and politician who famously visited the US in 1830 and gathered his observations in the classic treatise Democracy in America (1835). According to Tocqueville, history is hurtling toward a condition of ever-greater “equality of conditions,” as aristocratic privileges fade away and industrialization enables greater levels of general prosperity. Tocqueville insists that this progression is inevitable and potentially beneficial insofar as equality is a precondition for freedom—especially the freedom to create wealth and contribute to one’s community. However, equality is also a precondition for despotism, where a faceless bureaucracy exercises more control over the individual than any medieval tyrant could have imagined. Modern life is so complex and changes so quickly that if people do not work together to build strong social bonds, they will withdraw into themselves and become easy prey for a centralized administrative state. The main difference between Tocqueville and Bregman is that Tocqueville viewed institutions as the main solution to the problem of modernity. Divisions between federal and state authority, a free press, reverence for the law, and habits of association all help bring people together as both free and equal citizens. Bregman does not ignore such matters but is mostly concerned with specific policy ideas that can spur a more imaginative approach to politics. This makes Bregman more explicitly utopian than Tocqueville, but Tocqueville clarifies that the ideal guiding his thinking is freedom. As Bregman turns to policy questions, he does not state the guiding principles of his utopian vision.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text

Unlock all 49 pages of this Study Guide

Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.

  • Grasp challenging concepts with clear, comprehensive explanations
  • Revisit key plot points and ideas without rereading the book
  • Share impressive insights in classes and book clubs